Terrorists don't need firearms, but thus far they managed to get a shoe full of semtex onto the aircraft. A better trained terrorist who really knew what to do with it, who could have made a hasty shape charge and taken the hinge line off the door...would have had some better success.

The pieces of the puzzle are there, and you don't have to be that bright to be able to put them together. It's not particularly appropriate to spell it all out here, but if you're truly dense enough to not get it, to swallow the CNN-level mental narcotic and feel completely insular in your cockpit (or cubicle as the case may be), then enjoy the false sense of nirvana.

It's called "initial" and "recurrent."

FFDO's don't get pilot training. They get FFDO training. For the FFDO's to get pilot training, they go to the same source as you. Go figure.

That must have been scaaaaary.

You poor thing.

At a shooting range, maybe. Most people under fire, under stress in a shooting condition don't hear the shots. If those shots are being fired, however, they're the one thing standing between you and having your throat sliced open with a dull knife. That big, bad sound is the last thing you need to worry about at a time like that.

People like to say "that's the sound of freedom" when they hear a tactical jet fly overhead. That handgun discharging in your cockpit is the sound of your redemption, and it's the sound of your last defense. Savor it, because if it doesn't work, it may be all you ever hear.

If that weapon isn't there, the last thing you will hear is the gurgling sound you make as the knife cuts your trachea. That's going to be a lot more distressing than a little .40 s&w handgun being fired from the seat next to you.

What a terrible oversight. Why not get rid of the sidearm, ditch the FFDO program, and have someone hack away at your throat with something halfway sharp? Then you'd know what to expect.

 

It's going to take a while to hack through that door with a box cutter.

 

I'll refrain from posting details, but the door can come down easy and fast from the outside. Tactics are changing for the terrorist too, I can't say how online. I'll just say you should be afraid. Our intelligence and tactics are changing to meet new tactics and threats.

Posting about the FFDO in complete ignorance is...well, ignorant of you. If it happens on your plane, you'll be lucky to have a FFDO onboard.

 

Find yourself in this picture.

 

It's nice to read Jingoism alive and well on this forum. I like that in this fantasy land scenario this terrorist armed with a dull knife was able to breach flight deck with no issue. The passengers just sat quietly at the thought of their impending death.

 

Yes, re-post

 

Is that what you read? Time to have your prescription renewed.

It only takes one or two attackers to hold the forward galley area, however, and an army of rambo-watching hero-wannabe passengers won't get through there. It narrows, you see.

We have had semtex smuggled onto an aircraft in shoes, have we not? Roll a ribbon, hasty shape charge, and there goes the hinge line. You read that in this thread, didn't you?

The foolishness and hot air about getting into the cockpit with a dull knife, and leaving the cockpit to go hunting is strictly the domain of James Brakes (and apparently you, too), and shows a gross ignorance of the topic.

 

Because if they are sophisticated enough to smuggle in semtex, they've covered themselves and are going to take out the flight crew no problem. I know the gun makes you feel like you got a chance, but is there any data to say that it would actually help? If the terrorists just stuff a bunch of baggage up there they can incapacitate them. It's not a defensible position. Some people want it to be badly, but I don't think that makes it one. Rather than throw money at something that is not effective, put that money into Israel-type questions, or better TRAINING for TSA, audits for TSA, something that would actually do something, rather than the wishful hope you'll be able to stop a highly trained terrorist from an defensible position (via government funds). Make those that want to "carry" get the gun and training themselves.

It's like the guys that rationalize taking a 9mm or .380 into bear or couger country, because it's all they own and they use it for CC in the city. It's a pointless because an animal like that isn't slowed down by feeling pain when it's attacking, they have thicker skin, muscles, fascia, tendons, and everything else when compared to humans. 300g high pressure magnum loads are considered the minimum to deal with bears, and a puny 115g 9mm round carrying less than half the energy just doesn't penetrate enough to give you a chance in hell, won't even go through the skull, much less deal with the aspect that most people can't hit a moving target like that, even at closer ranges. There are people that even bring their .22s thinking that they'll "shoot it in the eye", as if that's even practical. Although a good handgun (.44mag min) is a good backup, it's not even what people carry primarily for dealing with bears in the areas where they are prevalent, that honor goes to a high power rifle. The handgun is just the "sh*t hit the fan" and it will still do the job if the caliber/power is big enough. Now I have no problem with people carrying a 9mm into bear country, but it's an idiotic idea if you are doing it to protect yourself from bears (as a primary weapon) and the government should not be paying for it.

 

The United States military carries the 9mm. The US Navy SEALs carry 9mm and .45 acp. 9mm provides more than adequate penetration in human targets to yield incapacitation and has been more than proven in combat and on the street.

The FFDO's are using .40 s&w.

There is no concern of bears making a forced entry into the cockpit in a Part 121 tansport category aircraft; again more straw man ignorance from your direction. Your credibility went out the window when you were arguing about leaving the cockpit to go hunting terrorists, and talking about entering the cockpit using a dull knife to force one's way in. Nothing more you have to say on the topic will bring you back from there, so you might as well stop while you're behind.

A .40 has more than enough penetration, and has an excellent street record; so much so that it's the most common law enforcement chambering in the United States. Perhaps everyone else is wrong, but you.

But probably not.

You really don't carry or use firearms in the brush, do you? Your credibility has long been spent, but point of fact I carry a .44 magnum (super blackhawk, 3" bbl) for critters in the brush, and the preferred tool for bears, especially for hasty responses, is a 12 gauge with rifled slugs.

Again, we're not talking about bears invading the cockpit; it's a stupid comparison, at best. I don't know many people, even the inordinately idiotic ones, that would carry a .22lr for bears, but perhaps that's the crowd with whom you associate. Personally, I'm quite comfortable with .45 colt, .44 mag, .45/70, and .308 for bears or any North American critters, and I'm very comfortable with the same for anything on two legs, too. 9mm, .40, and .45 work exceedingly well on two-legged game, including radicalized nutjobs who might have an inkling to enter a cockpit uninvited.

You're really out there. Tired, or drugs, or what? Who has said anything about carrying weapons to protect from bears, or the government paying for the same? Not really a matter of national security (unless you're talking about Russian Bears, but that's another matter entirely).

The government can, does, and should fund training for pilots to carry defensive handguns in the cockpits of aircraft in the United States.

You've shown how little you understand about the program or the threats that make it worthwhile; your ignorance is very clear on the topic. Rather than continue to attack it from a position of extreme ignorance, perhaps you should inform yourself, then step up to the plate. Before doing that, attempt to regain some measure of credibility, because thus far you're into negative values, and really have no more to offer on the topic.

You're comparing hunting bears in the wild to defending a cockpit? Really?

 

The reality of whether or not the flight deck is defensible is not what I am after. We as a country are broke. We should not be spending money on speculative programs like FFDO. If we had the money surplus and no debt then fine, but we don't. Since 9-11-01 there have been no attacks on airliners thwarted by an armed Pilot. That's over a decade. The pilot may be able to some day do it but if we wait 20 years and billions later it was not a sound investment in money. I don't believe that two people can hold the galley against a plane load of passengers. That is an impossible thing to prove but just not realistic.